[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23195]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 20, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-301-801]
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh
Cut Roses From Colombia
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 20, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Maeder or James Terpstra, Office
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-3330, or (202) 482-3965.
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that fresh cut roses (roses) from
Colombia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of
1930 (the Act), as amended. The estimated margins are shown in the
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
Since the notice of initiation on March 7, 1994 (59 FR 11771, March
14, 1994), the following events have occurred.
On March 31, 1994, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
issued an affirmative preliminary determination.
On April 19, 1994, the Department decided to collect constructed
value (CV) information from all respondents in addition to home market
or, where appropriate, third country sales information (See the April
19, 1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford).
On May 5, 1994, the Department issued sales and cost questionnaires
to the following 16 Colombian companies: Agricola Benilda; Agrorosas
S.A.; Flores La Fragancia S.A.; Flores Mocari S.A.; Grupo Andes; Grupo
Bojaca; Caicedo Group; Grupo Clavecol; Grupo Floramerica; Grupo
Intercontinental; Grupo Papagayo; Grupo Prisma; Grupo Sabana; Grupo
Sagaro; Grupo Tropicales; and Rosex LTDA. These companies accounted for
approximately 40 percent of the exports of the subject merchandise
during the period of investigation (POI). Although the Department
``normally will examine not less than 60 percent of the dollar value or
volume of the merchandise sold'' during the POI, 19 CFR 353.42(b)(1),
due to limited administrative resources the Department chose to examine
less than 60 percent (See the May 2, 1994, memorandum from the team to
Barbara R. Stafford).
On June 24, 1994, the Floral Trade Council, petitioner in this
investigation, requested a postponement of the preliminary
determination until September 12, 1994, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.15(c)
(1993). As we found no compelling reason to deny the request, the
Department granted this request on June 28, 1994 (59 FR 34409, July 5,
1994).
On June 24, 1994, the Department relieved all respondents except
Caicedo Group from the requirement of reporting sales of roses imported
and/or sold as part of bouquets (See the June 24, 1994, memorandum from
the team to Barbara R. Stafford). On this same date, the Department
also instructed respondents to report monthly-average price data for
the U.S. market, home market, and where appropriate, third country
markets (See the June 24, 1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R.
Stafford).
Also on June 24, 1994, the Department determined that eight of the
respondents (Agricola Benilda; Flores La Fragancia S.A.; Grupo Bojaca;
Caicedo Group; Grupo Floramerica; Grupo Intercontinental; Grupo
Papagayo; and Grupo Prisma) had viable home markets and were instructed
to report home market sales data as the basis for foreign market value
(FMV).
In addition, the Department determined that four of the respondents
(Grupo Clavecol; Grupo Sabana; Grupo Sagaro and Grupo Tropicales) did
not have viable home markets and instructed the respondents to report
third country sales data as a potential basis for FMV (See the June 24,
1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford). However, since
respondents argued that third country markets were fundamentally
different from the U.S. market, it was decided that the final basis for
FMV for these last four respondents (either third country sales or CV)
would not be determined until more information was received (See the
``Third Country Sales Versus Constructed Value'' section of this notice
for further discussion).
The Department also instructed four of the respondents (Agrorosas
S.A.; Flores Mocari S.A.; Grupo Andes; and Rosex LTDA) to report CV as
the basis for FMV as the volume of sales in neither the home market nor
third countries was adequate.
On June 29, 1994, one of the four respondents in the second
category above, Grupo Sagaro, submitted an amendment to its
questionnaire response. In that amendment, Grupo Sagaro stated that,
based on further review, it did have a viable home market. After
reviewing the new sales information, the Department agreed and on July
8, 1994, we instructed Grupo Sagaro to base its FMV on home market
sales.
Respondents submitted responses to the Department's sales and cost
questionnaires in May and July 1994. The Department issued deficiency
sales and cost questionnaires in June, July, August and September 1994.
Respondents submitted their responses to these deficiency sales and
cost questionnaires in June and August 1994. Agricola Benilda submitted
a comprehensive revision of its sales and cost information on September
8, 1994. Agrorosas S.A. submitted minor pre-verification corrections on
September 9, 1994.
On July 5, 1994, petitioner requested that the Department reject
home market sales as a basis for FMV for nine of the respondents for
which the home market was viable. Petitioner stated that these sales
were not in the ordinary course of trade. On July 11, 1994, the
Department issued supplemental questionnaires to determine if the sales
reported were in the ordinary course of trade. On July 25, 1994, the
respondents provided their responses to these supplemental
questionnaires.
On July 28, 1994, petitioner alleged that the nine respondents
which had viable home markets sold roses in the home market at prices
below their cost of production (COP). Petitioner also alleged that
Grupo Tropicales sold roses in one of its two third country markets,
Argentina, at prices below its COP.
On August 22, 1994, the Department instructed Rosex to file a
consolidated response with Rosas Sausalito and Induflora. This response
is due on September 12, 1994. For our preliminary determination we
based our analysis on only Rosex's data.
On September 8, 1994, the Department initiated COP investigations
against the nine respondents with viable home markets and against
Argentine sales for Grupo Tropicales (See the September 8, 1994,
memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
Based on information obtained from the respondents which had viable
home markets, the Department determined on September 9, 1994, that home
market sales were in the ordinary course of trade and, therefore, could
be used in the Department's analysis (See the September 9, 1994,
memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford).
On September 12, 1994, the Department decided to base FMV for Grupo
Clavecol, Grupo Sabana and Grupo Tropicales on third country sales (See
the September 12, 1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R.
Stafford). For a further discussion, see the ``Third Country Sales''
section of this notice.
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are fresh cut roses,
including sweethearts or miniatures, intermediates, and hybrid teas,
whether imported as individual blooms (stems) or in bouquets or
bunches. Roses are classifiable under subheadings 0603.10.6010 and
0603.10.6090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written description of the scope of this investigation is
dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The Department initiated this investigation using our standard six-
month POI from September 1, 1993, to February 28, 1994. On March 30 and
April 11, respondents submitted comments on the POI. On April 5, 1994,
petitioner also submitted comments on the POI. On April 14, 1994, the
Department altered the POI to calendar year 1993 because of the
seasonal nature of sales and production in the rose industry (See the
April 14, 1994, memorandum from the team to Richard W. Moreland).
In addition, for purposes of price-to-price comparisons, we are
basing FMV on two six-month periods: January 1, 1993, through June 30,
1993; and July 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993. For a further
discussion of these periods, see the September 12, 1994, concurrence
memorandum.
Best Information Available
We have determined, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act,
that the use of best information available (BIA) is appropriate for
sales of the subject merchandise by the following respondents: (1)
Agricola Benilda; (2) Grupo Intercontinental; (3) Grupo Prisma and (4)
Grupo Andes.
In assigning BIA, the Department applies a two-tiered methodology
based on the degree of respondent's cooperation. In the first tier, the
Department normally assigns higher margins (i.e., margins based on more
adverse assumptions) for those respondents which did not cooperate in
an investigation or which otherwise impeded the proceeding. If a
respondent is deemed non-cooperative, the Department bases the
preliminary margin for the relevant class or kind of merchandise on the
higher of: (1) The highest margin in the petition or (2) the highest
calculated margin of any respondent within that country that supplied
adequate responses for the relevant class or kind of merchandise.
In the second tier, the Department assigns lower margins to those
respondents who substantially cooperate in an investigation. These
margins are based on the higher of: (1) The highest calculated margin
for any respondent within the country that supplied adequate
information for the relevant class or kind of merchandise or (2) the
average margin of the margins in the petition (See, e.g., Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings
(Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal
Republic of Germany, (54 FR 18992, May 3, 1989)).
The Department's two-tiered methodology for assigning BIA has been
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (See
Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir.
1993); See also Krupp Stahl AG v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT
1993)).
For Agricola Benilda, Grupo Intercontinental and Grupo Prisma, we
have determined that these respondents' original and deficiency
questionnaire responses were unusable for the preliminary determination
because they contained significant deficiencies (See the September 12,
1994, memorandum from David L. Binder to Barbara R. Stafford). In
addition, Agricola Benilda submitted substantial revisions to its sales
and cost information on September 8, 1994.
However, because Agricola Benilda, Grupo Andes, Grupo
Intercontinental and Grupo Prisma responded to our requests for
information, we find that these respondents have been substantially
cooperative for purposes of this preliminary determination.
Accordingly, we used as second-tier BIA for these respondents the
average of the margins contained in the petition, which is 55.94
percent. This margin is higher than the highest margin calculated for
any respondent in this investigation.
Furthermore, we have issued supplemental deficiency letters to
Agricola Benilda, Grupo Intercontinental and Grupo Prisma. If these
respondents submit adequate and timely responses to these letters, we
will conduct verification for these respondents and will consider their
information for purposes of the final determination.
For Grupo Andes, we have determined that this respondent has failed
to respond adequately to the Department's deficiency questionnaire and
failed to inform the Department in a timely manner that it had
sufficient sales of export-quality roses in the home market to deem the
home market viable. While Grupo Andes stated that its home market was
not viable, analysis of its deficiency response has indicated that its
home market is, in fact, viable.
Grupo Andes' failure to correctly indicate that its home market
was, in fact, viable constitutes a material error: the determination of
what basis in which to make price comparisons is central to the entire
dumping analysis.
While Andes has substantially cooperated in this investigation, the
history of its responses indicates that the information reported was
highly unreliable, and its failure to report home market sales was a
fundamental error. Because of the serious errors in Andes' reporting,
we would have needed a materially new response. We find that there is
insufficient time prior to verification in which to analyze such a
response and any possible supplemental responses. For these reasons we
will not be conducting verification for this respondent and will also
base the margin for Grupo Andes in the final determination on
cooperative BIA (See the September 9, 1994, memorandum from David L.
Binder to Barbara R. Stafford).
Such or Similar Comparisons
We have determined that all roses covered by this investigation
comprise two categories of ``such or similar'' merchandise: culls and
export-quality roses. None of the respondents reported sales of culls
in the United States. Therefore, no comparisons in this such or similar
category were made. Regarding export quality roses, where possible, we
made comparisons of identical merchandise. Where there were no sales of
identical merchandise in the home market or third country market to
compare to U.S. sales, we made similar merchandise comparisons on the
basis of: (1) Form (e.g., as part of a bouquet, an individual stem,
etc.); (2) type (e.g., hybrid tea, sweetheart, etc.); (3) color; (4)
stem length; and (5) variety. We did not make any adjustments for
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise because
respondents reported no cost differences between the products.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of roses from Colombia to the United
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States
price (USP) to the FMV for all non-BIA respondents, as specified in the
``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this
notice.
United States Price
For sales by all non-BIA respondents except Floramerica, we based
USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act,
when the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated purchasers in the
United States prior to importation and when exporter's sales price
(ESP) methodology was not otherwise indicated.
In addition, for all non-BIA respondents, where sales to the first
unrelated purchaser took place after importation into the United
States, we based USP on ESP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act.
For all U.S. prices, we used weighted-average monthly U.S. prices
(See the September 12, 1994, concurrence memorandum).
During the POI, some of the respondents paid commissions to related
parties in the United States. We determined that these commissions were
directly related to the sales under consideration. We also tested these
commissions for these respondents to determine whether they were paid
at arm's length using the criteria set forth in the Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper from Belgium
(56 FR 56359, November 4, 1991). Where we found that they were paid at
arm's length, we deducted them from USP. However, we found that
respondents used these commissions as a mechanism for reimbursing their
related parties for their actual expenses. Accordingly, in order to
avoid double-counting, where the actual expenses of the related party
were less than the commissions, we deducted only the commissions. Where
the commissions were less than the actual expenses, we also deducted
the amount by which the actual expenses exceeded the commissions (See
the September 12, 1994, concurrence memorandum).
Finally, for those respondents who had related parties in the
United States and did not report inventory carrying costs on their ESP
sales, we calculated these costs for these respondents using an
inventory carrying period of seven days. This is the maximum amount of
time which may transpire between the time a rose is cut and when it
must be sold to the ultimate customer, according to a public report by
Harry K. Tayama, PhD., submitted by respondents in this investigation.
For companies with sales to unrelated parties, we accepted that
inventory carrying costs were included in U.S. credit expenses.
We made company-specific adjustments, as discussed below:
1. Agrorosas S.A.
For Agrorosas, U.S. purchase price was based on packed, f.o.b.
prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions,
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign
inland freight, air freight, U.S. and Colombian indirect selling
expenses, brokerage and handling charges, commissions, U.S. import
duties, direct selling expenses, and credit expenses.
2. Flores La Fragancia S.A.
For Flores La Fragancia S.A., we calculated purchase price based on
packed, f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We
made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland
freight and air freight.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for
discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, credit expenses and
U.S. and Colombian indirect selling expenses including inventory
carrying costs.
3. Flores Mocari S.A.
For Flores Mocari S.A., we calculated purchase price based on
packed, f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We
made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air
freight and U.S. import duties.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, credit expenses and
other direct selling expenses. Also, as described above, we deducted
the greater of related party commissions or indirect selling expenses.
4. Grupo Bojaca
For Grupo Bojaca, we calculated purchase price based on packed,
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, brokerage and handling
and credit expenses.
5. Caicedo Group
For Caicedo Group, we calculated purchase price based on packed,
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland freight,
air freight, U.S. import duties, and U.S. inland freight.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for
discounts, Columbian Flower Council (CFC) fee, foreign inland freight,
air freight, U.S. import duties, U.S. inland freight, repacking
expenses, and credit expenses. Also, as described above, we deducted
the greater of related party commissions or indirect selling expenses.
6. Grupo Clavecol
For Grupo Clavecol, we calculated purchase price based on packed,
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for discounts and foreign inland
freight.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign
inland freight, air freight, U.S. brokerage and handling charges,
credit expenses and U.S. and Colombian indirect selling expenses
including inventory carrying costs. Because Clavecol did not adequately
support its reported interest rate, we used the highest public interest
rate on the record in the companion investigation of roses from Ecuador
which is a ranged value for a U.S. subsidiary of an Ecuadoran rose
producer, Guaisa, of 10 percent (See the September 12, 1994,
concurrence memorandum and the September 9, 1994, memorandum to the
file).
7. Grupo Floramerica
For Grupo Floramerica, we calculated ESP based on packed prices to
unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, where
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight, U.S. import
duties, brokerage and handling, United States Department of Agriculture
inspection fees, warranty expenses including billing credits,
promotional fees, credit expenses and U.S., Panamanian and Colombian
indirect selling expenses including inventory carrying costs.
8. Grupo Papagayo
For Grupo Papagayo, we calculated purchase price based on packed,
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and other
expenses.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, U.S. inland freight,
brokerage and handling charges, Colombian indirect selling expenses
including inventory carrying costs, direct selling expenses including
credit, other expenses, and commissions paid to unrelated parties.
9. Grupo Sabana
For Grupo Sabana, we calculated purchase price based on packed,
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, foreign inland freight,
air freight and U.S. import duties.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for
discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties and
credit expenses. Also, as described above, we deducted the greater of
related party commissions or indirect selling expenses.
10. Grupo Sagaro
For Grupo Sagaro, we calculated purchase price based on packed,
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties and credit expenses.
11. Grupo Tropicales
For Grupo Tropicales, we calculated purchase price based on packed,
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and air
freight.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for
discounts, foreign inland freight, air freight, credit expenses, other
direct selling expenses, and U.S. and Colombian indirect selling
expenses including inventory carrying costs.
12. Rosex LTDA
For Rosex LTDA, we calculated purchase price based on packed,
f.o.b. prices to unrelated customers in the United States. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight.
We calculated ESP based on packed prices to unrelated customers in
the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign
inland freight, air freight, U.S. import duties, brokerage and handling
and credit expenses.
Foreign Market Value
In calculating FMV, wherever there were no sales of comparable
merchandise in the home market or third country markets, we based FMV
on CV. In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.58, for price to
price comparisons, we compared U.S. sales to home market or third
country sales made at the same level of trade, where possible.
We have three different bases for FMV: (1) Home market sales; (2)
third country sales; and (3) constructed value. Each is discussed
separately below:
Home Market Sales
In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of fresh
cut roses in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating
FMV, we compared the volume of home market sales of export quality
roses to the volume of third country sales of export quality roses in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Based on this
comparison, we determined that nine of the 16 respondents had viable
home markets. The nine companies were: Agricola Benilda; Flores La
Fragancia S.A.; Grupo Bojaca; Caicedo Group; Grupo Floramerica; Grupo
Intercontinental; Grupo Papagayo; Grupo Prisma and Grupo Sagaro.
However, we did not use home market sales for Agricola Benilda, Grupo
Intercontinental, Grupo Prisma or Grupo Andes because we based the
margin for these companies on BIA. In addition, we based Grupo Andes'
margin on BIA because we found that it had misrepresented its home
market as nonviable (See the ``Best Information Available'' section of
this notice for a further discussion).
Because petitioner's allegations, when considered in light of the
information on the record, gave the Department ``reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect'' that the nine respondents with known viable home
markets were selling roses in Colombia at prices below their COP, the
Department initiated COP investigations to determine whether these
respondents had home market sales that were made at less than their
respective COPs (See the September 8, 1994, memorandum from Richard W.
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford). Respondents requested that we depart
from our normal practice and interpret our COP analysis in such a
manner as to either accept or reject all sales. We denied this request
as unreasonable (See the September 12, 1994, concurrence memorandum).
In keeping with our past practice involving perishable agricultural
products where we found less than 50 percent of a respondent's sales of
roses were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost
sales because we determined that the respondent's below-cost sales were
not made in substantial quantities (See Certain Fresh Winter Vegetables
From Mexico 45 FR 20512 (1980)). Where we found between 50 and 90
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below
the COP, and the below cost sales were made over an extended period of
time, we disregarded only the below-cost sales. Where we found that
more than 90 percent of respondent's sales were at prices below the
COP, and the sales were made over an extended period of time, we
disregarded all sales for that product and calculated FMV based on CV.
In order to determine whether home market prices were above the
COP, we calculated the COP based on the sum of a respondent's cost of
cultivation, general expenses, and packing. We calculated CV based on
the sum of a respondent's cost of cultivation, plus general expenses,
profit and U.S. packing. For general expenses, which includes selling
and financial expenses (SG&A), we used the greater of the reported
general expenses or the statutory minimum of ten percent of the cost of
cultivation. For profit, we used the greater of the weighted-average
third country profit during the POI or the statutory minimum of eight
percent of the cost of cultivation and general expenses, in accordance
with section 773(e)(B) of the Act.
For all respondents, we corrected the calculation of interest
expense for COP to remove the offset to this expense. This reduction to
interest expense is only applicable for CV calculations. Interest
expense for all respondents was corrected to a per-unit amount.
Further, for all respondents we based the amortization expense upon the
amounts normally recorded by each company in its usual record keeping.
We rejected adjustments that companies made to the amortization expense
solely for purposes of this investigation. We also made specific
adjustments to respondents' COP and CV data as described below:
1. Flores La Fragancia S.A.
For Flores La Fragancia S.A., we: (1) Corrected the calculation of
greenhouse plastic amortization to reflect the methodology normally
used by the company; (2) corrected the reported ``material for
greenhouse frames'' to agree with the underlying schedules provided in
the response; (3) corrected the reported net financing costs to agree
to the underlying schedules; and (4) corrected for a mathematical error
in the calculation of SG&A expenses.
2. Grupo Bojaca
For Grupo Bojaca, we corrected the reported general and
administrative (G&A) expense amount to reflect the amount reported in
the company's financial statement.
3. Caicedo Group
For Caicedo Group, we included the expenses associated with a
freeze which occurred during the POI, and removed the effect of
erroneous crop adjustment amounts (i.e., capitalizing more costs than
the total accumulated amount) reported in the COP calculation.
4. Grupo Papagayo
For Grupo Papagayo, we removed the effect of erroneous crop
adjustment amounts (i.e., capitalizing more costs than the total
accumulated amount) reported in the COP calculation.
In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as
described below:
1. Flores La Fragancia S.A.
For Flores La Fragancia S.A., we calculated FMV based on delivered
prices to unrelated customers in the home market.
For home market price to purchase price comparisons, pursuant to
section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made
circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit
expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs.
For home market price to ESP comparisons, we deducted the weighted-
average home market indirect selling expenses, including, where
appropriate, inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater
of related party commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on
U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) (See the September
12, 1994, concurrence memorandum). We deducted home market packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs.
For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average home
market indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs,
up to the amount of the greater of related party commissions or
indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19
CFR 353.56(b)(2).
2. Grupo Bojaca
For Grupo Bojaca, more than 90 percent of Grupo Bojaca's home
market sales were found to be at prices below their COP. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act we disregarded all home
market sales and calculated FMV based on CV.
For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
For CV to ESP comparisons, we deducted the weighted-average home
market indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate,
inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the indirect selling
expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.56(b)(2).
3. Caicedo Group
For Caicedo Group, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices to
unrelated customers in the home market. We excluded from our analysis
home market sales that were ultimately exported.
For home market price to purchase price comparisons, pursuant to
section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made
circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit
expenses and CFC fee. We deducted home market packing costs and added
U.S. packing costs.
For home market price to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where
appropriate, for credit expenses. We also deducted the weighted-average
home market indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate,
inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater of related
party commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales,
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). We deducted home market packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs.
For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses and CFC fee.
For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average home
market indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs,
up to the amount of the greater of related party commissions or
indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19
CFR 353.56(b)(2).
For comparisons involving ESP sales, we revised U.S.-incurred
indirect selling expense to: (a) Include sales to local vendors in the
calculation of the indirect selling expense ratio and (b) deduct U.S.
inland freight expenses that were reported as indirect selling
expenses.
4. Grupo Floramerica
For Grupo Floramerica, more than 90 percent of Grupo Floramerica's
home market sales were found to be at prices below their COP.
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act we disregarded
all home market sales and calculated FMV based on CV.
For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average home
market indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect selling
expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.56(b)(2).
5. Grupo Papagayo
For Grupo Papagayo, more than 90 percent of its home market sales
were found to be at prices below their COP. Therefore, we disregarded
all home market sales and calculated FMV based on CV.
Due to the deficiencies found in respondent's reported home market
sales data, we disallowed home market inland freight, packing costs,
indirect selling expenses, and imputed credit from the dumping margin
calculation for purposes of the preliminary determination.
On September 9, 1994, Agrorosas submitted a letter containing some
pre-verification corrections pertaining to its sales and cost data.
Given the limited time available to the Department to examine the newly
submitted information, this information is not used in the preliminary
determination dumping margin. However, the newly submitted information
will be subject to verification and will be considered in the final
determination of this investigation.
For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstances of
sales adjustment for direct selling. We also added U.S. commissions.
No deductions were made for CV to ESP comparisons due to
disallowing home market indirect selling expenses from the margin
calculation.
6. Grupo Sagaro
For Grupo Sagaro, more than 90 percent of its home market sales
were found to be at prices below their COP. Therefore, in accordance
with section 773(c) of the Act we disregarded all home market sales and
calculated FMV based on CV.
For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,
for credit expenses and commissions. We also deducted from CV the
weighted-average home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount
of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with
19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
Third Country Versus Constructed Value
On March 30, 1994, counsel for 14 of the 16 respondents requested
that the Department reject third-country sales and rely instead on
constructed value as the basis for FMV.
The Department's normal preference, based on its regulations, is to
utilize third-country sales rather than constructed value when there is
a viable third country market. See 19 CFR 353.48(b). Respondents have
urged departure from this practice, citing Certain Fresh Cut Flowers
from Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
55 FR 20491 (May 17, 1990)(Flowers). The Department determined in
Flowers that departure from our normal practice was warranted after an
analysis of three unusual factors present in that case. Respondents
argue that the facts in this investigation present even more compelling
reasons to reject third-country sales than were present in Flowers. In
determining whether the circumstances in this case are such that it
should fall under the exception established in Flowers, we have
analyzed the information presented in light of the three factors set
forth in Flowers: (1) Negative correlation of price and volume
movements between markets; (2) peak to non-peak comparisons; and (3)
the perishability of the subject merchandise.
As a threshold matter, we note that the record in this case is
different from Flowers in that European markets play a relatively less
important role in our analysis. In Flowers, the Department's analysis
focused solely on a comparison of the U.S. market with European markets
as the vast majority of third country markets under consideration were
in Europe. The Department did not evaluate conditions in other markets.
In this case, and the companion investigation in Ecuador, respondents
reported significant sales to Argentina and Canada, as well as Europe.
Respondents in this case have submitted additional information for all
the relevant markets--Europe, Canada, and Argentina. However, it is not
clear that the information submitted up to this point supports
respondents' assertion that sales in the third country markets should
not be compared to U.S. sales in this case.
Negative Correlation Factor
In Flowers, the Department found a negative correlation between
price and volume movements in the United States and European markets.
This negative correlation indicated that price differences between
markets could either mask or exaggerate dumping. The Department
determined that the negative correlation was caused by a number of
elements, including: (1) The greater price and volume volatility of the
U.S. market; (2) the sporadic, gift-giving nature of U.S. demand; (3)
respondents' lack of access to the European auctions (the main
distribution point for flowers in Europe), and (4) differing peak price
periods.
Respondents argue that, in this case, there is similar evidence of
a negative correlation of price and volume movements between the U.S.
and third country markets. In support of their position, respondents
have submitted several reports. A 1994 report by Professor Tayama
analyzes, among other things, the consumption patterns for roses in the
United States, Europe, Canada and Argentina, and compares seasonal and
holiday purchasing patterns in the markets. Tayama asserts that both
Europe and Canada have mature and relatively stable markets because
both markets are supply driven (i.e., in times of peak production as
supply increases, prices go down). In contrast, Tayama claims that' the
U.S. market is demand driven--the majority of sales are made for
Valentine's Day when demand increases and prices rise. With regard to
Argentina, Tayama states that roses are grown for home consumption and
imports occur mainly during the winter months, as in Europe. Moreover,
Tayama asserts, Argentina has a different seasonal and holiday pattern
from the United States. No market, he states, has the extraordinary
demand for roses that exists in the U.S. market on Valentine`s Day.
Petitioners have countered Tayama's assertions with an August 10,
1994, submission which contains, among other things, a report by Roses
Inc., an association of U.S. rose producers. The Roses Inc. report
raises questions about the conclusions in the Tayama report, asserting
that: 1) there is a global market for roses which is driven by demand
everywhere; and 2) key holiday periods are actually very similar
between the United States and Europe--specifically that the highest
prices in both the United States and Europe occur in February. Thus, we
are not in a position to conclude that the Tayama report provides a
sufficient basis to determine that comparison of U.S. sales to third
country sales is inappropriate.
In support of the conclusions drawn in the Tayama report,
respondents submitted the 1994 Fresh Cut Roses: Issues in the
Estimation of Dumping in the U.S. Market (Botero Report) which contains
a statistical analysis of the United States, European, and Canadian
markets and seeks to demonstrate the lack of correlation between price
movements in the third country and U.S. markets. The Botero Report
provides three types of statistical analyses which, according to
respondents, support their contention that third country prices should
not be used due to the ``different equilibrium conditions'' of these
markets as compared to the U.S. market for roses. First, Botero
analyzes price movements within the United States, Europe and Canada,
from which he concludes that different market forces are at work (i.e.,
price and quantity movements within Europe and Canada are negatively
correlated and price and quantity movements within the United States
are positively correlated). Second, Botero analyzes price and quantity
movements across markets and concludes that there is no correlation
between the U.S. market and either the European or Canadian markets.
Third, he estimates the price cycles for roses in the U.S., European
and Canadian markets and concludes that ``the seasonal patterns of the
two markets [U.S. and European, U.S. and Canadian] are different and
therefore monthly price comparisons do not reflect price
discrimination.'' Botero asserts that these test results demonstrate
that prices in these third country markets should not be compared to
prices in the U.S. market to determine price discrimination.
We have reviewed the Botero Report and have concerns regarding the
data and the statistical parameters used to perform the statistical
analysis on European, Canadian and U.S. rose prices. For example, Dr.
Botero's relied on prices that may not be comparable. U.S. prices for a
single hybrid tea variety rose were compared to European prices for all
hybrid tea variety roses; and U.S. import prices, rather than U.S.
domestic prices, were compared to European domestic prices. These
comparisons may be inappropriate--we have no basis to conclude that a
single hybrid tea rose is representative of all hybrid tea roses, or
that U.S. import prices are representative of U.S. domestic prices.
Moreover, Dr. Botero's F-test results appear to be invalid. Dr. Botero
apparently used the incorrect degrees of freedom--(k,n-2) instead of
(k-1,n-2). More importantly, Dr. Botero appears to have misread the ``F
Table'': he reported the value of Fn-2,k at the 99 percent
confidence level, rather than Fk-1,n-2 at the 99 percent
confidence level. Finally, Dr. Botero provided no explanation of his
use of a 99 percent confidence level.
In light of these questions, the Department, at this stage, finds
the information on the record inconclusive as to whether the third
country and U.S. markets are negatively correlated. We intend to
further evaluate the Botero Report for purposes of making our final
determination. Further details relating to this issue are set forth in
the September 12, 1994, memorandum to Barbara Stafford.
Peak to Non-Peak Factor
Third country sales in Flowers were not made over the entire year.
They were made only in peak months. The record established that
Colombian growers had little access to the European auction system and
were only able to export flowers to Europe during those months when
domestic supply was low. On the other hand, the Colombian growers
targeted 80 percent of their production to the U.S. market and made
sales to the United States in every month. As a result, the Department
determined that it was unable to make contemporaneous sales comparisons
in all months and would be required to compare low-value U.S. sales in
off-peak months with high-value third country sales in peak months.
The circumstances on the record in this case are somewhat
different. One of the three companies reporting third country sales has
year-round sales to a single third country market, while the other two
companies have third country sales in every month in the markets
selected by the Department pursuant to Sec. 353.49(c). Therefore, it
appears that the Department may have sufficient contemporaneous sales
in the aggregate for all twelve months of the POI. Further, the
Department has based FMV on two six-month averages; the use of such
averages also should reduce any potential for distortion.
Perishability Factor
The third factor considered in Flowers was related to the role of
perishability on production and sale. This factor included: (1) The
extreme perishability of the subject merchandise; (2) the inability of
producers to control short-term production; and (3) the inability to
store or make alternative use of the product. The Department found that
the respondents planned 80 percent of their production around the U.S.
market and sold excess production in markets in which they did not
necessarily plan to sell. These factors combined to create a ``chance
element'' to third country sales which raised the concern that any
observed price differences would be unrelated to dumping.
We note that there are substantial similarities between flowers and
roses. First, roses, like flowers, are extremely perishable. Second,
rose growers have relatively greater, though still minor, control over
short-term production than flower growers because of their ability to
pinch back buds. Third, as with flowers, roses cannot be stored and we
note that there are only very minor alternative uses (e.g., drying).
While some respondents are able to sell a small percentage of their
production to markets other than the United States as a regular part of
their business plan, which reduces to some extent the ``chance''
element to selling excess production, we note that this was also true
with some companies in Flowers. See Methodological Issues Concerning
Colombian Cut Flowers, Sparks Commodities, Inc. 1989.
In view of the questions raised above, we conclude that, for the
purpose of the preliminary determination, the evidence at this stage is
not sufficient to justify departure from our normal practice of
reliance on third country prices. However, we intend to revisit this
issue in our final determination in light of further information and
analysis with regard to the three factors set out in Flowers as well as
any other facts that might be relevant on this issue.
Third Country Sales
For three of the 16 respondents, the home market was not viable;
therefore, we based FMV on third country sales (See the September 12,
1994, memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford). These three
companies and their selected third country markets were: Grupo Clavecol
(Argentina and Canada); Grupo Sabana (Canada); and Grupo Tropicales
(Argentina and Germany). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(c), we
selected for two of these respondents more than one third country
because a single third country did not meet the Department's viability
standards.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49, we selected the appropriate third
country market(s) for each respondent based on the following criteria:
similarity of merchandise sold in the third country to the merchandise
exported to the United States, the volume of sales to the third
country, and the similarity of market organization and development
between the third country and U.S. markets. For a complete discussion
of the selection of third country market(s), see the June 24, 1994,
memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford.
Based on petitioner's allegations that Grupo Tropicales was selling
roses in Argentina at prices below its COP, and information on the
record, the Department had a reasonable basis to suspect or believe
that sales were made below cost and therefore initiated a COP
investigation to determine whether Grupo Tropicales had Argentine sales
that were made at prices less than their COP. Although Grupo Tropicales
also had third country sales to Germany, we did not initiate a COP
investigation on these sales because they were not included in
petitioner's COP allegation (See the September 8, 1994, memorandum from
Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
For a discussion of our COP test methodology, see the ``Home Market
Sales'' section above. We made no adjustments to the COP and CV data
submitted by Grupo Tropicales.
In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as
described below:
1. Grupo Clavecol
For Grupo Clavecol, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices to
unrelated customers in Argentina and Canada.
For third country to purchase price comparisons, we made deductions
for foreign inland freight, air freight, and brokerage and handling,
where applicable. Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19
CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of sale adjustments, where
appropriate, for credit expenses. We deducted third country packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs.
For third country to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, air freight and brokerage and
handling. We also deducted the weighted-average Argentine and Canadian
indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate, inventory
carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater of related party
commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). We deducted third country packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs.
2. Grupo Sabana
For Grupo Sabana, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices to
unrelated customers in Canada.
For third country price to purchase price comparisons, we made
deductions for Canadian inland freight, air freight, Canadian import
duties, U.S. brokerage and Colombian inland freight. Pursuant to
section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made
circumstance of sale adjustments, where appropriate, for credit
expenses. We deducted third country packing costs and added U.S.
packing costs.
For third country price to ESP comparisons, we made deductions,
where appropriate, for Canadian inland freight, air freight, Canadian
import duties, Canadian brokerage and Colombian inland freight. In
addition, we made deductions for credit and direct selling expenses in
Canada. We also deducted the weighted-average Canadian and Colombian
indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate, inventory
carrying costs, up to the amount of the greater of related party
commissions or indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). We deducted third country packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs.
3. Grupo Tropicales
For Grupo Tropicales, we calculated FMV based on delivered prices
to unrelated customers in Argentina and Germany.
For third country price to purchase price comparisons, we made
deductions for foreign inland freight. Pursuant to section 773(a)(4)(B)
and 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of sale adjustments,
where appropriate, for credit expenses. We deducted third country
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.
For third country price to ESP comparisons, we made deductions,
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight. In addition, we made
deductions for credit. We also deducted the weighted-average Argentine
and German indirect selling expenses, including, where appropriate,
inventory carrying costs, up to the amount of the indirect selling
expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.56(b)(1). We deducted third country packing costs and added U.S.
packing costs.
Constructed Value
For three of the 16 respondents, we calculated FMV based directly
on CV, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, because these
respondents did not have adequate sales in either the home market nor
in any third country markets during the POI. These three companies
were: Agrorosas S.A.; Flores Mocari S.A. and Rosex LTDA. We calculated
CV based on the sum of respondent's cost of cultivation, plus general
expenses, profit and U.S. packing. For general expenses, we used the
greater of the reported general expenses or the statutory minimum of
ten percent of the cost of cultivation. For profit, we used the greater
of the weighted average third country profit during the POI or the
statutory minimum of eight percent of the cost of cultivation and total
SG&A expenses, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.50(a)(2).
For these respondents, we based the amortization expense upon
amounts normally recorded by each company in their usual record
keeping. We rejected adjustments that companies made to the
amortization expense solely for purposes of this investigation. We also
made specific adjustments to respondents' CV data as described below:
1. Agrorosas S.A.
For Agrorosas S.A., we did not consider the minor pre-verification
correction filed on September 9, 1994 for the preliminary
determination. This data will be fully analyzed for our final
determination.
2. Flores Mocari S.A.
For Flores Mocari S.A., we revised the calculation of interest
expense to express the expense as a per-unit amount.
3. Rosex LTDA
For Rosex LTDA, we also revised the calculation of interest expense
to express the expense as a per unit amount.
In order to calculate FMV, we made company-specific adjustments as
described below:
1. Agrorosas S.A.
For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstances of sale
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,
for credit expenses and commissions. We also deducted from CV the
weighted-average U.S. indirect selling expenses up to the amount of
indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19
CFR 353.56(b)(2).
2. Flores Mocari S.A.
For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,
for credit expenses. We also deducted from CV the weighted-average U.S.
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, up to
the amount of the greater of related party commissions or indirect
selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.56(b)(2).
3. Rosex LTDA
For CV to purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale
adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses.
For CV to ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate,
for credit expenses and commissions. We also deducted from CV the
weighted-average home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount
of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with
19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
Currency Conversion
Regarding transactions in third country currencies, we made
currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect
during the month of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve
Bank.
Because certified exchange rates for Colombia were unavailable from
the Federal Reserve, we made currency conversions for expenses
denominated in Colombian pesos based on the official monthly exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as published by the
International Monetary Fund.
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the
information used in making our final determination.
Critical Circumstances
In the petition, petitioner alleged that ``critical circumstances''
exist with respect to importation of roses. However, we did not
initiate a critical circumstances investigation because, since roses
are extremely perishable, it is not possible to accumulate an inventory
of roses in order to evade a potential antidumping duty order.
Therefore, we determined that an allegation that critical circumstances
exist is without merit (See the September 12, 1994, concurrence
memorandum).
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of fresh cut
roses from Colombia, as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation''
section of this notice, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit
or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping
margins, as shown below. The suspension of liquidation will remain in
effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agrorosas.................................................. 4.93
Grupo Papagayo (and its related farms Agricola Papagayo,
Inversiones Calypso S.A., Omni Flora Farms Inc., and Perci
S.A.)..................................................... 8.02
Flores Mocari S.A. (and its related farms Cultivos
Miramonte and Devor Colombia)............................. 13.86
Grupo Sabana (and its related farms Flore de la Sabana S.A.
and Roselandia S.A.)...................................... 34.35
Flores la Frangancia....................................... 27.60
Grupo Benilda (and its related farms Agricola La Maria
S.A., Agricola La Celestina Ltda., and Agricola Benilda
Ltda.).................................................... 55.94
Grupo Clavecol (and its related farms Claveles Colombianos
Ltda., Sun Flowers Ltda., Fantasia Flowers Ltda., Splendid
Flowers Ltda.)............................................ 4.58
Floramerica Group (and its related farms Floramerica S.A.
(Santa Lucia and Santa Barbara Farms), Jardines de
Colombia Ltda., Flores Las Palmas Ltda., Cultivos del
Caribe Ltda., Jardines del Valle Ltda., and Cultivos San
Nocolas Ltda.)............................................ 10.55
Rosex (and its related farms Rosex Ltda. (La Esquina and
Paraiso Farms), Induflora Ltda., and Rosas Sausalito
Ltda.).................................................... 13.96
Grupo Sagaro (and its related farms Flores Sagaro S.A. and
Las Flores S.A.).......................................... 5.26
Grupo Tropicales (and its related farms Rosas Colombianas
Ltda., Happy Candy Ltda., Mercedes Ltda., and Flores
Tropicales Ltda.)......................................... 50.96
Grupo Prisma (and its related farms Flores del Campo Ltda.,
Flores Prisma S.A., Flores Acuarela S.A., Flores el Pincel
S.A., Rosas del Colombia Ltda., Agropecuaria Cuernavaca
Ltda.).................................................... 55.94
Grupo Bojaca (and its related farms Agricola Bojaca Ltda.,
Universal Flowers, and Plantas y Flores Tropicales Ltda.
(Tropifora)).............................................. 21.21
Andes Group (and its related farms Flores Horizonte,
Cultivos Buenavista, Flores de los Andes, and Inversiones
Penasblancas)............................................. 55.94
Caicedo Group (and its related farms Agrobosque, Productos
el Rosal S.A., Productos el Zorro S.A., Exportaciones
Bochia S.A.--Flora Ltda., Flores del Cauca, Aranjuez S.A.,
Andalucia S.A., Inverfloral S.A., and Great America
Bouquet).................................................. 29.60
Grupo Intercontinental (and its related farms Flora
Intercontinental and Flores Aguablanca)................... 55.94
All Others................................................. 33.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,
the ITC will determine whether imports of the subject merchandise are
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry,
before the later of 120 days after the date of the preliminary
determination or 45 days after our final determination.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no later than October 17, 1994, and
rebuttal briefs no later than October 24, 1994. In accordance with 19
CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to give
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held on
October 25, 1994, at 9:30 a.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B-099, within ten days of the
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Request should
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentation will be limited
to issues raised in the briefs.
This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the
Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(f)) and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).
Dated: September 12, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-23195 Filed 9-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P